The plaintiffs claimed damages for patent infringement. Some of the lost profits for which the plaintiff company claimed damages were suffered by subsidiary companies in which it held all the shares.
Held: When a shareholder has a cause of action but his company has none, he can recover damages measured by the reduction in value of his shareholding; but that the plaintiff must prove the amount of his own loss and that it cannot be assumed that this is the same as the loss suffered by the company. There is no rule of law limiting damages which can be awarded for patent infringement to monopoly profits only. Infringement of a patent is a statutory tort; and the damages recoverable should be governed by the same rules as with many or most other torts. The victim should be restored to the position he would have been in if no wrong had been done, and the victim can recover a loss which was (i) foreseeable, (ii) caused by the wrong, and (iii) not excluded from recovery by public or social policy. The requirement of causation is sometimes confused with foreseeability, which is remoteness. The two are different.
Judges:
Staughton LJ
Citations:
Times 17-Jan-1997, [1996] EWCA Civ 1245, [1997] RPC 443
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Citing:
Appeal From – Gerber Garment Technology Inc v Lectra Systems Ltd ChD 30-Jan-1995
A prior art recital in a Patent application is strong but rebuttable evidence of the state of knowledge. . .
Cited by:
Cited – Coflexip Sacoflexip Stena Offshore Limited v Stolt Offshore Limitedstolt Offshore Limited Stolt Offshore A/S CA 13-Mar-2003
In proceedings already heard the defendant had been found liable for patent infringement, and damages remained to be assessed. They claimed for loss of profits and royalties, and for damages through dilution of the market. The claimants said that to . .
Cited – London General Holdings Ltd and others v USP Plc and Another CA 22-Jul-2005
Copyright was claimed in a draft legal agreement. Infringement was established, but the court was asked to look at the assessment of damages.
Held: ‘what is the basis upon which damages for breach of copyright are awarded? The question cannot . .
Cited – Johnson v Gore Wood and Co HL 14-Dec-2000
Shareholder May Sue for Additional Personal Losses
A company brought a claim of negligence against its solicitors, and, after that claim was settled, the company’s owner brought a separate claim in respect of the same subject-matter.
Held: It need not be an abuse of the court for a shareholder . .
Cited – Devenish Nutrition Ltd and others v Sanofi-Aventis SA (France) and others ChD 19-Oct-2007
The claimant sought damages for the losses it had suffered as a result of price fixing by the defendant companies in the vitamin market. The European Commission had already fined the defendant for its involvement.
Held: In an action for breach . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Intellectual Property, Damages
Updated: 04 November 2022; Ref: scu.141113
